OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docstandards-interop-tech message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: Re: [docstandards-interop-tech] Re: About UOML


Sorry for late response.
First, congratuate for launching discussion list.
Regard your question, UOML is truely dealing with layout-based information, oriented towards preserving the presentation rather than semantics. Therefore, the proposed standards will be good partner of UOML: UOML preserves presentation among different documents, while the proposed standard preserves semantics.
Regard SEP, it is one of implement of UOML. I beleive there will be more and more implements of UOML in future.
Although the basical mode of UOML is additive, there's no limitation to modify the content underneath if the rights permit. But the way to modify is probably not meets your requriements.
I wonder how can you realize the interoperation? To define a universal language for in and out? In my opinion, to define operation interface is quite feasible than to define a new format.

Best regards,

-Alex


>To echo my concern about UOML, the standards we are dealing with are 
>primarily structured markup, not unstructured. From the charter, it 
>appears that UOML will retain and focus on preserving layout-based 
>information for presenting the document in print. I think what we are 
>proposing is oriented towards preserving the semantics rather than 
>presentation.
>
> From what I've seen at UOML.org, it appears to require a proprietary 
>platform to process documents in and out of UOML using SEP. Correct me 
>if I'm wrong, but I thought I had read somewhere that UOML is additive, 
>in that you cannot modify or change the content underneath. If that is 
>the case, I'm not sure that meets our use cases, either.
>
>Best regards,
>
>--Scott
>
>Michael Priestley wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> As some background, the standards currently involved (with the 
>> arguable exception of ODF) are all structured document type standards.
>>
>> We have demonstrated strong interoperability and reuse within the DITA 
>> family of document types, and basic interoperability support in the 
>> DITA Open Toolkit (at http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net) between DocBook 
>> and DITA. We are trying to abstract the problem to a higher level by 
>> proposing a framework for interoperability. This might be at the level 
>> of shared attributes across the standards for expressing reuse intent 
>> and constraints, and at the level of a common target format with the 
>> fewest possible constraints to be used for interchange (possibly based 
>> on XHTML).
>>
>> So I'm still not sure how UOML relates to the proposed technical 
>> committee. Are you saying we would use it to select the content to 
>> reuse? Given that we are talking about XML document standards to begin 
>> with, this seems like high overhead - we can already reuse content 
>> today using a variety of standard-specific reuse mechanisms, we're 
>> just trying to make those mechanisms operate consistently.
>>
>> Michael Priestley
>> IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
>> mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
>> http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
>>
>>
>> *"Alex Wang" <dlwang@sursen.com>*
>>
>> 03/30/2007 12:45 PM
>>
>> 	
>> To
>> 	Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>> cc
>> 	<docstandards-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> Subject
>> 	RE: [docstandards-interop-tech] Re: About UOML
>>
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> UOML is no longer a storage format standard, it is an operation
>> interface standard. UOML is equivalent to "SQL" for unstructured
>> information.
>> Per my study, it is very difficult (or even impossible) to make two
>> different formats fully compatible. No matter how many efforts you make,
>> you can only get closer to the goal, but may never reach it.
>> UOML is an alternative solution, which deals with layout-based documents
>> and treats them just like papers. An UOML application works like a pen,
>> which can be used to edit any UOML document in the same way as a pen is
>> used to write on any paper.
>> In the basical mode, an UOML appliction can only append new content to a
>> document, can't modify previous content. This mode is same as paper. If
>> one can work with paper, one can work under this mode.
>> In your scenario, the govt worker should use an office suite which based
>> on OpenOffice and support UOML, like RedOffice, to creat the policy
>> note. For second step, he require an application which support DITA and
>> UOML, to add new content to the previous document. So does 3rh step and
>> so on.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:37 PM
>> To: dlwang@sursen.com
>> Cc: docstandards-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [docstandards-interop-tech] Re: About UOML
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you point us to some introductory material? Even better, could you
>> tell us how UOML would fit into the reuse scenario we've been working
>> to, which is:
>>
>> - govt worker begins drafting a policy note in ODF about the use of
>> personal data received via email
>> - govt worker pulls in the text of the relevant statute, which is in a
>> DITA specialization
>> - govt worker pulls in the legal disclaimer which must now be included
>> in every government email reply, from a different DITA specialization
>> - govt worker pulls in the instructions on how to include the text of
>> the disclaimer in emails, from documentation of the email software
>> written in DocBook
>>
>> - technical author 1, using DITA, creates an internal policy and
>> procedures website
>> - and pulls in text from the DocBook email software documentation
>> - and pulls in the legal text from a DITA specialization
>> - and pulls in the relevant section of the policy note, written in ODF
>>
>> - technical author 2, using DocBook, creates a customized version of the
>> email software documentation
>> - and pulls in portions of the procedures web site, in the form of DITA
>> topics and ODF policy notes
>>
>> Michael Priestley
>> IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
>> mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
>> http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
>>
>>
>> "Wang Donglin" <dlwang@sursen.com>
>> 03/30/2007 06:16 AM Please respond to
>> dlwang@sursen.com
>>
>> ToMichael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Scott Hudson"
>> <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>
>> cc"mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>,
>> "docstandards-interop-tech@lists."
>> <docstandards-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Dee Schur"
>> <dee.schur@oasis-open.org>
>> SubjectAbout UOML
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>> UOML provide effective interoperability between different document
>> format. Before start a new TC, one need know more about UOML.
>>
>> -Alex
>> Chair
>> OASIS UOML TC
>>






[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]